It sounds to me like the pro-lifers want to have their cake and eat it too. This new definition of personhood could really create a mess for pro-lifers. It may sound like something that would support their side, but in the end, it may make the pro-choice support groups' side stronger. And if this really ends up just being "a simple statement of principles," what is the point? Based on this article, it seems like voters best choice, no matter whether they are pro-life or pro-choice, is to ignore this new definition of personhood and let things be as they were.

Following this line of reasoning, the State would have to demand, finance and carry out the removable of an embryo from the womb of a woman who previously would have sought abortion. The State would then have to find and pay a surrogate to finish the pregnancy.
How many people supporting this idea have actually thought it through?

Outside of religious-based views of "life", and sexuality what are the really strong arguments against abortion and homo-sexuality?

Is there a large base of non-religious people who have strong opinions against abortion?

I think that a world without the NEED for abortions is a great ideal to work toward, but I dont see that we're there yet, nor that we're heading in the right direction. Do the opponents of abortion burden themselves with any responsibility to reduce the 'need' for abortions, or are they just all about imposing their version of morality on others and letting them figure out how to work it out in their wretched lives?
We do need to keep this issue in perspective though. There are a lot of other very important choices that need to be made as well. Is it true that conservatives are finding ways to hold up lots of other important legislation by injecting abort rights issues into it? That REALLY scares me.

Without religious ideals, or the desire to pay other people's bills for them, or the desire to see even more hoards of impoverished, poorly educated people being raised with sketchy guidance in life and influenced by politicians that tell them what they want to hear...its really hard for me to muster the momentum to interfere with people's lives on this point and force them to have children that they arent prepared to raise. I am happy to support measures to prevent them from abusing, neglecting or mistreating children that they do choose to bring into the world, though, but I see it as a different issue. Some people really arent parent material, or they arent parent material yet, and unless you want to pony up the time and money to raise their kids for them, i dont want to force them to go through with it.

Realistically, sometimes there is a difference between what sounds ideal, and what works in practice. There is a difference between what is good for each individual and what is good for society. And sometimes what is easy for society is not good for society.

In my mind, the worst "sin" we are collectively committing as a society is over-population. God never told anyone to 'go forth and over-populate the planet', according to the Christian version of the story, man is supposed to be the steward of the planet. Nowadays, it doesnt look like we're doing so hot. Fortunately, scientists are doing the math, looking at the big picture, and raising alarms for people who care to listen.

The only reason that we're currently able to sustain this many humans is because we're quickly burning through our natural resources like oil, forests and water, and putting our needs and wants above those of everything and everyone else. Most of that is going to be gone in 30 to 50 years, and at the rate we're going, by that time we'll have billions more people to feed.

I do agree that life is precious, but, for life to thrive it has to be balanced and sustainable, and at some point in its growth, that requires various forms of MANAGEMENT. [Go raise yourself a tank of fast-breeding fish and you'll see what i'm talking about]. Abortion is certainly not the only form of population management and i'm sure that most people would agree that it is the least attractive, but most people in most countries dont seem to have the stomach for other measures either. Something has to give somewhere, or its just a matter of time before the value of human life will be on a fast decline for everyone. Management and stewardship often require hard choices. Hard choices often involve picking the lesser of two evils. While your religion may tell you that homosexuality is 'wrong', there is an upside, they dont tend to run around making babies.

Once we get to the point where there is truly not enough to go around, even the 'nice' people will be fighting for left-overs, and we wont be having these fancy discussions on the finer points of the value of human life.

I dont EVER want to see humanity reach THAT stage, but, I'm honestly starting to see lots of discussion that we'll start seeing signs of it in our lifetimes, or at best in our children's lifetimes.

We need to make a lot of very hard choices about getting into step with sustainability. We need educated people that understand the consequences of the decisions that congress makes on a wide range of issues. We need to get greed in check, structure our government to serve us well, and create an environment that makes it easier to raise a family.

"Outside of religious-based views of "life", and sexuality what are the really strong arguments against abortion and homo-sexuality?"

I don't think "life" is only a religious concept.

"Is there a large base of non-religious people who have strong opinions against abortion?"

I'd say that there's a large base of non-religious who don't have strong pro-choice opinions. A majority even. Most people, religious or not, don't buy the pro-choice narrative that the unborn are blobs of cells that the host can discard as she pleases. Most non-religious favor some abortion restrictions. Most non-religious accord the unborn some status above that of carrot. Some like Christopher Hitchens go even further and consider themselves pro-life. Non-religious pro-choice feminist Naomi Wolf thinks pro-choicers have gone too far in trying to dehumanize the unborn.

As for overpopulation, population growth has been slowing since the 60's and will eventually fail to stay above replacement. People are having fewer kids even without abortion.

Your argument is totally without any merit. How, and why, would you equate abortion with homosexuality? There is absolutely nothing that links them together. If you are looking to make a logical argument then leave religion out of the discussion and just use the standard rules of logic that you hopefully learned in school.

The law as it exists works under the assumption that human life has a special status, so merely because a zygote is less developed than a carrot does not mean that assigning the zygote status equal to a full human being means we have to do the same for a carrot.

Since the substantive arguments are as sound, both manifesting exactly the same number and degree of person like qualities or characteristics, the proposition should be amended to also legally define carrots as persons.

And then all of those rapacious carrot killers will be murderers, to be dealt with by the law accordingly.

And while at it, why not go the whole hog and define hogs, dogs, rats, bats, cabbages, and cucumbers and every other living thing as a person? Why stop at a single human cell or blob of cells thereof?

I myself am pro-life. I believe that a child exists the moment of conception. I want nothing more than for this law to be passed. I think that even though it might not have much power since it is only a state law, it is a step towards an end to abortion.
I do think that it is a bit extreme to assume that if this law is passed than birth control will be banned too (like stated in this article). The law states that you can't abort the child once it is conceived. It says nothing about preventing conception.

The most rational coherent argument, that I have ever read, concerning the Pro-Life vs. Pro-Choice debate was written by the late David Foster Wallace in his book of essays "Consider the Lobster." Here is a portion of his argument:

"In this reviewer's opinion, the only really coherent position on the abortion issue is on that is both Pro-Life and Pro-Choice...The question of defining human life in utero is hopelessly vexed. That is,given our best present medical and philosophical understanding of what makes something not just a living organism but a person, there is no way to establish at just what point during gestation a fertilized ovum becomes a human being. This conundrum, together with the basically inarguable soundness of the principle “When in irresolvable doubt about whether something is a human being or not, it is better not to kill it,” appears to me to require any reasonable American to be Pro-Life.
At the same time, however, the principle “When in irresolvable doubt about something, I have neither the legal nor the moral right to tell another person what to do about it, especially if that person feels that s/he is not in doubt” is an unassailable part of the Democratic pact we Americans all make with one another, a pact in which each adult citizen gets to be an autonomous moral agent; and this principle appears to me to require any reasonable American to be Pro-Choice. "

Not to say fetuses are bugs. Just that they are not people. While I believe every human born enriches the human race, I will not put a fetus before the rights of a woman. The fetus is not a person yet. Cockroaches may some day evolve to become sentient and learn the mysteries of the universe or great artists, but they have not yet.

I feel like from either side of this case, there are all kinds of loop holes to use as a defense in the laws. New laws won't change that, but create more holes. Abortion is always going to be debated. People will always have different opinions and find ways to defend themselves. Why try to resolve it?

Abortion is a personal matter and it should remain that way. It is ridiculous that lawmakers, mostly MEN, who will never experience pregnancy, are calling the shots. Even if abortion is made illegal, abortions will still be preformed by sketchy "doctors" in alleyways and women will suffer the consequences. I believe in regulating abortion by only preforming them in the first trimester. However, the right to choose needs to be left to woman. Sure, a woman who isn't ready to be a mom could give the baby up for adoption but what will happen to their kid then? Will he/she be adopted? Maybe. But there is a good chance they will be passed from one foster home to another. Some families may be nice and some may just want a check and the child is likely to be neglected and abused. Anti-abortion laws ruin 2 lives, not one. Pro-life advocates should focus on raising money to support our inadequate foster care system instead of worrying about a ball of cells.

vectro, bureaucratic or legal questions doesn't make someone not human, or the same as a carrot. depressing you'd think it was ok to murder someone just because there was some legal issue about some other ancillary aspect of society.

"I haven't figured out if you can vote or not yet, time to get ur spinal cord severed."

This has a huge number of other considerations as well. If fetuses are persons, then they should be able to hold property, pay taxes, work, receive public benefits, support political campaigns, and otherwise participate in legal and social systems in any of the ways that regular children can. Fetuses would, for example, be entitled to compensation for commercial use of their image -- and even if the fetus failed to make it to term, those rights would accrue to its heirs.

And all the foregoing applies equally to embryos, too! Could a parent create hundreds of embryos in vitro, freeze them, and claim them as dependents for tax or benefit purposes? Would they be legally entitled to vote after 18 years in cold storage? If they die, or even fail to implant, would the parents qualify for death benefits?

How long will it be before the first emancipated fetus? Will this change the timer on various age-based rights (voting, drinking, smoking, military service) to run from the date of conception instead of from birth? And how would you determine the date of conception, anyhow?

One thing is for sure: If this measure passes, the lawyers will have a field day.

Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (property) - This is not a republican or democrat, conservative or liberal issue. Life is stated in the Declaration of Independence. A fertilized human egg is human. It's not a lizard or a toe nail. It's not dead or an inanimate object. It is growing and developing. Then if an embryo is not considered a life, why and what is it if it's not a life? If a woman doesn't want to get pregnant but chooses to have sex anyway, why should the human inside be made to die? Why shouldn't the father have a say? At the very least, I do not want to help pay for abortions that were the result of a consensual sex. If a woman gets pregnant and consented, she can either keep the baby, put him or her up for adoption, or pay for the abortion herself. Abstinence would be the smarter choice.

Although Pro-Choice, I understand and respect the argument that a human is defined at the point of fertilization. What I don't understand is really what Mississippi is trying to achieve through this law/interpretation or whatever you want to call it. If it passes, does that mean Mississippi will have doctors that won't allow women to get abortions in their first trimester? If that's the case, those doctors will be sued by those patients and taken to federal court where federal law will trump state every time.
Also, Pro-lifers need to relax about this whole thing. They think the pro-choice people are all for killing babies and don't realize that it's a horrible situation that no pro-choice advocate wishes to find themselves in. I'm sure there aren't many pro-lifers who look forward to getting pregnant as a teenager or raped; but if you want to keep the baby more power to you, I RESPECT your CHOICE. CHOICE. CHOICE. CHOICE. CHOICE.

what about looking how it works in say Holland where abortion is legal, advice is free and available and education is provided to everyone. I guess the last bit scares US Americans a bit i.e. education - gosh what might have happened if the folk were educated for a change. Scary, is it not?

The US needs to learn from enlightened countries like Holland that have more restrictive abortion laws. Abortion law in the US is just insane. It makes Scandinavians look like right-wing religious fanatics.

Pray to God to return me to this planet some time's about the 4000. I suppose the human species will be intellectually prepared and emotionally advanced to internally register and find a balance and somewhat of a completion of all of the speculation, curiosities, and questions that it idly musters up. In addition, it is very important to understand that there is a portion of the population that moves its pursuits in the direction of advancement atttempting only to remain advanced beyond that which is advanced; and only dishonesty would deny that, as the barrage of what truth and honesty details along with 7 billion lives attempts to establish its own truths and its..........bourne supremacy.

Those who persist in arguing in favor of an absolute right to choose must also then defend the right to late third trimester partial-birth gendercide. If you don't support that then the debate is, at its core, merely about a point in time so you can quit your righteous indignation and just leave it at that.